Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hays v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Id. ; Battles v. State , 626 S.W.2d 149, 150 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1981, no pet.); see also Hays v. State , 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.) ("[A]ppellant's violation of probation was supported solely by his plea of true, notwithstanding the fact that the State offered nothing to rebut his defense."). 2003Id. ; Battles v. State , 626 S.W.2d 149, 150 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1981, no pet.); see also Hays v. State , 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (“[A]ppellant's violation of probation was supported solely by his plea of true, notwithstanding the fact that the State offered nothing to rebut his defense.”). | 2 | 2 |
Moses v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Id. ; Battles v. State , 626 S.W.2d 149, 150 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1981, no pet.); see also Hays v. State , 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.) ("[A]ppellant's violation of probation was supported solely by his plea of true, notwithstanding the fact that the State offered nothing to rebut his defense."). 2003See Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Battles v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Id. ; Battles v. State , 626 S.W.2d 149, 150 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1981, no pet.); see also Hays v. State , 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.) ("[A]ppellant's violation of probation was supported solely by his plea of true, notwithstanding the fact that the State offered nothing to rebut his defense."). 2003Id. ; Battles v. State , 626 S.W.2d 149, 150 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1981, no pet.); see also Hays v. State , 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (“[A]ppellant's violation of probation was supported solely by his plea of true, notwithstanding the fact that the State offered nothing to rebut his defense.”). | 2 | 2 |
In the Interest of E.R.W.green1 sentence2025See In re E.R.W., 528 S.W.3d 251, 265 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (concluding that a 9 Mother claims in her brief that the substance she took was a “perfectly legal herbal supplement from [B]luebonnet” and that she was unaware that it “would interact with her medication and make her ill.” However, as the fact finder, the trial court was free to disbelieve that the substance was an herbal supplement and could have reasonably inferred that Mother had taken an illegal substance with her medications based on evidence of Mother’s past drug use and refusal to take a urine test tha | 1 | 1 |
in the Interest of B. C. S., a Childgreen1 sentence2025See In re E.M., 494 S.W.3d 209, 222 (Tex. App.—Waco 2015, pet. denied) (“A factfinder may reasonably infer from a parent’s refusal to take a drug test that the parent was using drugs.”); see also In re B.C.S., 479 S.W.3d 918, 925 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, no pet.) (“We give deference to the fact finder’s conclusions, indulge every reasonable inference from the evidence in favor of that finding, and presume the fact finder resolved any disputed facts in favor of its findings, so long as a reasonable fact finder could do so.”); see also In re E.P., No. 10-22-00086-CV, 2022 WL 2977479 , at *2 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
in the Interest of E.M. and J.M., Childrengreen2 sentences2025See In re E.M., 494 S.W.3d 209, 222 (Tex. App.—Waco 2015, pet. denied) (“A factfinder may reasonably infer from a parent’s refusal to take a drug test that the parent was using drugs.”); see also In re B.C.S., 479 S.W.3d 918, 925 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, no pet.) (“We give deference to the fact finder’s conclusions, indulge every reasonable inference from the evidence in favor of that finding, and presume the fact finder resolved any disputed facts in favor of its findings, so long as a reasonable fact finder could do so.”); see also In re E.P., No. 10-22-00086-CV, 2022 WL 2977479 , at *2 (Tex 2025See In re E.M., 494 S.W.3d 209, 222 (Tex. App.—Waco 2015, pet. denied) (“A factfinder may reasonably infer from a parent’s refusal to take a drug test that the parent was using drugs.”); see also In re B.C.S., 479 S.W.3d 918, 925 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, no pet.) (“We give deference to the fact finder’s conclusions, indulge every reasonable inference from the evidence in favor of that finding, and presume the fact finder resolved any disputed facts in favor of its findings, so long as a reasonable fact finder could do so.”); see also In re E.P., No. 10-22-00086-CV, 2022 WL 2977479 , at *2 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
Brennan v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Brennan v. State, 334 S.W.3d 64, 72 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
In re R.J.green1 sentence2021See In re N.J.H., 575 S.W.3d at 835 (father’s single negative drug test after treatment for substance abuse did not negate prior history of drug use); see also In re R.J., 579 S.W.3d at 118 (father’s nonuse of drugs for extended period and completion of outpatient drug treatment program did not 16 disallow factfinder from inferring he was at risk of continuing substance abuse from evidence of past use). | 1 | 1 |
in the Interest of N.J.H., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Servicesgreen1 sentence2021See In re N.J.H., 575 S.W.3d at 835 (father’s single negative drug test after treatment for substance abuse did not negate prior history of drug use); see also In re R.J., 579 S.W.3d at 118 (father’s nonuse of drugs for extended period and completion of outpatient drug treatment program did not 16 disallow factfinder from inferring he was at risk of continuing substance abuse from evidence of past use). | 1 | 1 |
Holley v. Adamsgreen1 sentence2018Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976). 22 Father offered several excuses during the trial for his failure to comply with the requirements found in his family service plan. | 1 | 1 |
Darland v. Stategreen1 sentence1984Compare Darland v. State, 582 S.W.2d 452 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Washington
green
1 sentence2024Clark, 576 U.S. at 245 ; Davis, 547 U.S. at 822 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Ohio v. Clark
green
1 sentence2024Clark, 576 U.S. at 245 ; Davis, 547 U.S. at 822 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Ferguson v. City of Charleston
green
1 sentence2016App. 2015) (per curiam). 6 Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001). 16 to the urine test as well as to the statement he made to medical personnel, therefore we address his arguments together.7 Unlike Villarreal, this case does not involve a situation where the State requested the medical personnel to obtain a urinalysis as part of a mandatory procedure. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ex parte Hill
neutral
1 sentence2015The defendant pled true to a different allegation and the appellate court made the observation that “had it (the urine test) been proven to be true, it should be remembered that proof of a single instance of the use of a drug cannot be characterized as a habit under the decisions of this court.” Garcia, 571 S.W.2d 900 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Salinas v. State
green
1 sentence2010Thus, according to Casillas, the jury could have fully understood the issues in this case without Kellogg’s testimony. -9- 04-09-00227-CR As authority, Casillas cites Salinas v. State, where the appellate court held that expert testimony diagnosing sexual abuse based solely on the complaining witness’s self-reported history was an impermissible attempt to bolster the complaining witness’s credibility and a direct comment on her truthfulness. 166 S.W.3d at 371 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hernandez v. State
green
1 sentence2008Id. at 28 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Wilson v. State
green
1 sentence1986The court in Wilson v. State, 697 S.W.2d 83 (Tex.App.1985) (pet. requested) considered a particular urine test system. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence1972Levell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 453 S.W.2d 831 ; Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 453 S.W.2d 507 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Levell v. State
green
1 sentence1972Levell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 453 S.W.2d 831 ; Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 453 S.W.2d 507 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.